I wrote FHWA last fall about including a multi-use trail in the B-W Parkway as one of the four options. FHWA wrote back saying that they would not consider a trail because trails were not in the master plan. I also urged SHA to take that position.

I wrote back saying that in fact, trails are in the PG master plan, so if they want to be consistent with the plan then they need to have a trail along the Parkway within PG from the Beltway to M-198. FHWA wrote back saying that they did not mean that they want to be consistent with local plans. Rather, that they do not want to consider a trail, and that if the trail was not withing the plan, then they would want to be consistent with plan.

I urged SHA to press this matter. At a state advisory meeting, Michael Jackson of MDOT suggested instead that NPS should allow bikes on the shoulder from MD-193 to MD-198.

I'm unclear whether SHA pushed this at all.

by Jim Titus on Feb 13, 2012 9:01 am • link • report

Is anyone else offended by the $600,000 spent on the OneCity Summit? I am all for the Summit and the government engaging the residents of the city, but that isn't just a tad excessive.

by William on Feb 13, 2012 9:44 am • link • report

"While FHWA is studying widening the BW Parkway, a likely bad idea, how about considering a bike trail? After all, it is officially a park."

No ... it's officially a parkway. I.e., Like the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, and the George Washington Parkway, this parkway was designed as a scenic, limited-access, motorway.

Please don't go jumping each time you hear the work 'park' assuming it means a place to go cycling or picnicking etc. The word park means 'greening' only. For example, in DC between the sidewalk and the property line (which are for the most part the flat building facades in the older part of town) there is a public space area called 'the parking area'. It's called 'parking', not because you park your car in it, because it's a public space area that is intended to be 'greened' creating continous 'parks' along both sides of the streets. Now no one would proposed strangers going behind the fences and sitting down to picnic or worse yet bicycle on this 'park' area. But the District does expect the adjacent landowners, to who it's entrusted it use and care and maintenance to, to 'green' it ... i.e., make it park-like.

And the parkways are no different. They were America's first effort to building express motorways, and unlike the later Eisenhower System, they included a greening element .... to make the drive more pleasurable to the motorists and their passengers.

by Lance on Feb 13, 2012 9:50 am • link • report

@Lance:
Are you suggesting then, that a separated, parallel bike trail (for transportation, not recreation) would somehow change the purpose of the "parkway"?

by Matt Johnson on Feb 13, 2012 9:53 am • link • report

Isnt part of the parkway run by the National PARK Service, which isn't a motor club the last time I checked?

by aaa on Feb 13, 2012 10:06 am • link • report

Lance throws in very different "parkways" here. He is absolutely correct that the BW Parkway and the GW Parkway were in fact designed as auto-centric, albeit scenic, thoroughfares. The Rock Creek Parkway, however, is a roadway grafted onto a pre-existing national park. The charter for Rock Creek Park stresses recreation and preservation of the natural environment, and it arguably overrides any later administrative re-orienting of priorities toward auto-centricity. NPS consistently fails to appreciate that fact.

by Crickey7 on Feb 13, 2012 10:08 am • link • report

@Crickey7,

How does the NPS consistantly fail to appreciate that?

by freely on Feb 13, 2012 10:10 am • link • report

Just saw Lance's comment. Park actually means "greening" and nothing more. My mistake.

by aaa on Feb 13, 2012 10:12 am • link • report

@Crickey7 "The Rock Creek Parkway, however, is a roadway grafted onto a pre-existing national park. The charter for Rock Creek Park stresses recreation and preservation of the natural environment, and it arguably overrides any later administrative re-orienting of priorities toward auto-centricity. NPS consistently fails to appreciate that fact."

First, thanks for recognizing that the mandates for the GW and BW are 'auto-centric'. However, in regards to Rock Creek, you need to check your history. The Rock Creek and Potomac Parkways are indeed ALSO auto-centric parkways created as part of the same 'first motorways in America' movement. I think you're thinking otherwise because the Rock Creek part of it got built maybe partially on what may have been parkland before its construction AND because it connects with Beach Drive. But it was definitely built as a parkway just like the other 2.

by Lance on Feb 13, 2012 10:15 am • link • report

Parkways were originally built for "pleasure driving" and were not intended for commuting purposes. Thomas MacDonald, the famous road advocate who headed the Bureau of Public Roads for many years, warned in 1924 against the desecration of "pleasure parkways" by such utilitarian uses - he thought it would undermine public support for road-building. See Mark Foster, "From Streetcar to Superhighway."

by Ben Ross on Feb 13, 2012 10:16 am • link • report

The last Master Planning process tacitly acknowledged that the use of Beach Drive and Rock Creek Parkway as commuting thoroughfares was inconsistent with the charter. It's severely stressed the ecosystem of the park and essentially makes it unavailable or unpleasant for many forms recreation for 5 or six prime hours a day. Closing it to commuting traffic was one of the options, nixed in truth because it was said to potentially cause too much traffic to be diverted onto other street. Which may be a political reality, but does not trump the purpose for which the Park was officially created. It's perhaps unrealistic to expect the NPS to make a politically unpopular stand for what's right, but they really didn't even try.

by Crickey7 on Feb 13, 2012 10:19 am • link • report

@Matt ... In answer to your question ... I think the operative word here is 'motor' as in motorways which these parkways were designed to be. I believe motorized bicycles (aka motorcycles) are already allowed on them in a 'sharrow' situation ... not requiring the need of separate roadways ...

;)

by Lance on Feb 13, 2012 10:20 am • link • report

I should say closing Beach Dr. Closing the Parkway was never considered.

by Crickey7 on Feb 13, 2012 10:20 am • link • report

@Lance:
That doesn't answer my question. I'm not asking if cyclists should be allowed to ride on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (they should not be). I'm asking whether the construction of a path in the greensward would fundamentally change the character of the "motorway".

Would you care to answer that question?

by Matt Johnson on Feb 13, 2012 10:23 am • link • report

Lance is quite right that the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway was definetly a auto-centric add on to Rock Creek Park. The section south of Connecticut clearly was an addition.

None of that would preclude a bike path on the BW parkway, which would be an excellent idea.

The summary of the Virginia bills is not quite right. The indexing of the gas tax is just an amendment and won't stick. I don't know the poltiics of moving sales tax revenue over to transportation, but an increase in the gas tax is a far better idea

by charlie on Feb 13, 2012 10:24 am • link • report

@Cricky7, Years ago when I was a struggling very-junior person at work and commuting from Silver Spring to Arlington for work, I used that path to get to work. Driving Beach Drive and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway over to the Memorial Bridge was always a great part of my day. It was time when I couldn't even afford a bike to go biking on weekends if I'd even had the time given there was a lot of work to take home with me. I greatly resented reading about the yuppie cyclists with their expensive bikes and expensive spandex suits complaining about the average person like myself getting a little enjoyment out of that park too. The fact they couldn't share it for those 5 hours a day (and only on weekdays) was an elitist sentiment which I've never been able to forget. These parks are for everyone. Not just the wealthy who have the time and the money to go play in them.

by Lance on Feb 13, 2012 10:27 am • link • report

Of course the parks are for everyone. Rock Creek on weekends is an amazing cross-section of ethnicities and income groups.

Non of that undercuts the point that using the entire length of the park as a daily commuting throroughfare for tens of thousands of cars is akin to using a priceless tapestry to wipe one's dipstick.

by Crickey7 on Feb 13, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

@Matt, "I'm asking whether the construction of a path in the greensward would fundamentally change the character of the "motorway".

The answer all depends on whether it would be written in stone that the greensward would not interfere with the primary mission of the parkway ... i.e., to provide a scenic motorway for motorists. The experience the NPS has had with the GW where as recently as last year we were reading of people on here asking that stop signs and/or signalized traffic lights be added to make the greensward safer for bicyclist on the 'after the fact'-added bike paths there, indicate this may not be an easy commitment to uphold over time. I.e., The NPS may be saying to itself 'it's not a road worth going down because it'll just lead to more problems later'. Unfortunatley, this happens in a lot of circumstances.

by Lance on Feb 13, 2012 10:33 am • link • report

RCP has been under near constant construction for the past 4 years, 75% of the work was the replacement and improvement of the roads drainage and storm systems to improve rock creeks water quality.

The NPS has announced they are widening and improving the multiuse trail in the park, including through the tunnel.
They close down more than half the park to vehicular traffic once a week.

The NPS was the 900 pound gorilla in the room in favoring the closure of Klingle Road, a road that was serving thousands of vehicles a day expressly for the purpose of making it multi-use trail.

Seriously, everything NPS has done with RCP and the Park in general the past ~15 years has shown its priorities are “not” autocentricity.

by freely on Feb 13, 2012 10:34 am • link • report

@Freely:

I've never seen any accounts of the Klingle Road debate indicate NPS did anything more that let the battle play out between other groups. As for the point on water quality efforts, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That every dollar not actually spent on roads should balance against turning the park into a commuting thoroughfare for six hours a day?

My original point is to say that the authorities probably have a pretty good point that they have no obligation to do anything for the BW Parkway other than accomodate cars. That's not necessarily true of other parkways.

by Crickey7 on Feb 13, 2012 10:49 am • link • report

@Lance: No ... it's officially a parkway. I.e., Like the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, and the George Washington Parkway, this parkway was designed as a scenic, limited-access, motorway.

That statement is only half right, that is, for the part of the parkway south of MD-175. North of that point, it is managed by SHA and subject to the state's complete streets policies. A federal study is free to ignore state and local policy, of course, but SHA would probably have to at least analyze a trail before the road was widened.

by Jim Titus on Feb 13, 2012 10:59 am • link • report

@lance

IIUC the original purpose of GW parkway was for scenic viewing, not commuting. How would the presence of stop signs or traffic lights interfere with that purpose?

Now, we know that GW Parkway today IS used for commuting. Given the need to leverage every bit of infrastucture we have, thats reasonable, despite not being the parkways original purpose. But that same rationale would say that the needs of cyclists should be considered as well.

Similarly on the BW parkway. Today that parkway is mostly used for commute and other purposeful trips, not pleasure trips. Theres no particular reason not to accommodate cycling. We are way past the original purposes on all the local parkways.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 13, 2012 11:11 am • link • report

@Crickey,

Yes, NPS attended most of the public meetings and lobbied the city hard to close it.

What do you mean you don't understand water quality efforts? That work and the tens of millions spent on it had zero beneficial effect on vehicular use. They could have milled and overlayed the entire thing in 2 weeks if they were simply looking to improve the driver experience. Water quality and erosion improvement measures are poster child actions for an organization charterd as the NPS is.

The improvements of all the multi-use trails and adding one to the tunnel which is frankly, nothing more than a big "fu" to drivers as that tunnel is super narrow as it is and the distance to use the trail around it adds literally an extra 45 seconds to ones bike trip.

I am not exactly a big fan of the NPS or its track record, but you are dead wrong with your characterization of its work in Rock Creek.

by freely on Feb 13, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

@freely - That tunnel is perfectly fine for a driver moving at a speed chosen to maximize enjoyment of the scenery. It is only an annoyance to drivers who are using it for purposes for which it was not intended.

by Ben Ross on Feb 13, 2012 11:19 am • link • report

Just because the GW Parkway is a road doesn't mean it's not a park. There are roads in parks too.

Here's the description of the parkway on the NPS website:

This is the "Road to Adventure" - originally designed as a grand gateway and greenway to the Nation's Capital. Here, you can learn about the First President and the development of America. As an oasis amid urban development, the Parkway has a variety of park sites that provide opportunities for everything from quiet contemplation to nature exploration to active recreation.

The George Washington Memorial Parkway stands as a memorial to George Washington. It connects historic sites from Washington's home at Mt. Vernon, past the nation's capital, to the Great Falls of the Potomac, where Washington demonstrated his skill as an engineer.

Considered a commuter route by many local residents, the Parkway offers the traveler much more than convenience. It is a route to scenic, historic and recreational settings offering respite from the urban pressures of metropolitan Washington.

The 7,374 acres that comprise the George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP) provide habitat and protection for at least 81 species of plants and animals listed in the States of Virginia or Maryland by their Natural Heritage Programs as rare, threatened or endangered.

by Falls Church on Feb 13, 2012 11:24 am • link • report

I am unfamiliar with Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, but my understanding is that it functions similarly to the parkways in the DC area, although it is under the state DOT, not the NPS.

They are running a trail study right now:

- http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=4185&Q=491882

WRT "parkways", if you read Caro's book about Robert Moses, which in the early part of the book extensively discusses his work building parkways, of course it should be no shock that in the 1920s and 1930s they weren't planning for bicycle accommodations.

Just because they didn't do it then doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done now.

The point that people have made about the master plan in comments above is funny, because the issue then is that the master plan is probably faulty, not that the "master plan doesn't include accommodations for trails."

by Richard Layman on Feb 13, 2012 11:34 am • link • report

@Ben Ross

Hear hear... at any given moment, most of the vehicles on the RCP are from Maryland, and of those Marylanders, easily 80%+ of them will be driving over 25 mph, the posted speed limit, and will tailgate you if you don't as well.

The point of Rock Creek Park is for recreation. If the park is impossible to get to because the feeder roads are so backed up with commuting traffic that you can't actually get to the park, then it's failing its purpose. If, once you're there, there's thousands of vehicles whizzing by, then the park again fails its mission.

@Lance you still haven't answered the question, troll: HOW DOES ADDING A BIKE PATH TO THE BW PARKWAY IMPEDE MOTORISTS?

by Matthew B on Feb 13, 2012 11:36 am • link • report

The trail route around the tunnel--which is the Beach Drive portion of Rock Creek Park, and not the Parkway portion--closes in the evening (I believe 6 pm in winter, 8 pm in summer). Going around is not an option then.

I would think even for a road oriented agency, having a stream where people are forbidden to wade or swim for water quality concerns might be a tad embarassing.

by Crickey7 on Feb 13, 2012 11:37 am • link • report

@Lance- I couldn't even afford a bike...

Walking is free. Many people enjoy RCP by walking.

by Tina on Feb 13, 2012 11:50 am • link • report

@Lance-These parks are for everyone. Not just the wealthy...

Walking is free. Your suggestion that only the wealthy enjoy RCP is pretty funny. Good one!

by Tina on Feb 13, 2012 11:52 am • link • report

@Matthew B. I did. Read my comment at !0:33. If you don't understand it, I don't know what to tell you ...

by Lance on Feb 13, 2012 12:43 pm • link • report

@Matthew,
The posted speed limit for RCP is 35, not 25.

Crickey7, I can't keep up with your changing arguments. I've given you 3 solid multimillion dollars issues that NPS has done in the past decade that are "anti-vehicle" by any definition of the book that directly refute your assertion. Pick an argument and stick with it.

Ben Ross,
Odd, ASHTO, the Federal Highway Administration and Ddot design criteria all show that the roadway to not meet minimum design criteria once they put the lane in there. Frankly, I am not sure how they are even allowed to do it.

The lane widths in this tunnel will be 11 feet once done, with zero shoulder on either side.

Minimum design criteria requires a minimum of 5' of shoulder as well for a 11 foot lane.

And before this argument takes yet another turn into something akin to SUV hate, a late model Honda civic is 6' wide, leaving 2.5 feet on either side so lets leave the "car size" argument for another day.

Do you really think it is a good idea to put a non-seperated (no railing, no wall) 5' trail thats up against a wall on one side and a traffic lane that doesn't even meet minimum roadway requirements in the District of Columbia.

This has nothing to do with whining about cars in "parkland", and everything to do with commonsense.

by freely on Feb 13, 2012 12:57 pm • link • report

@freely - The criteria you are talking about are all written for transportation facilities. Rock Creek Parkway was not built to serve a transportation purpose.

Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase functions reasonably safely with 9.5 foot lanes, and it has trucks and buses on it, which don't go through the tunnel.

If you feel that the purpose for which the tunnel was built is obsolete, and it should be turned into a facility for the exclusive use of automobiles, you can certainly make that argument. Others can suggest other mixes of purposes. But I was responding to Lance who wrote about the purpose of the tunnel.

by Ben Ross on Feb 13, 2012 1:19 pm • link • report

@freely in the tunnel we're talking about, it's 25

by Matthew B on Feb 13, 2012 1:27 pm • link • report

Note that the tunnel is NOT in the Parkway, so to the extent any portion of Rock Creek Parkway was officially repurposed as autocentric, this is not in that portion.

Frankly, I still don't get what spending money on water quality has to do with anything. The CCT design and construction spent millions on maintaining (and even improving) the streambed, banks and water quality of the nearby watercourses.

by Crickey7 on Feb 13, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report

@Ben "But I was responding to Lance who wrote about the purpose of the tunnel.

uhmmm ... you've lost me now ... I don't think I mentioned tunnel even once in this discussion (or others). Is this the tunnel near the zoo's back entrance? And what't the issue?

by Lance on Feb 13, 2012 1:42 pm • link • report

@freely--The speed limit on RCP is 25 mph south of Virginia Ave., NW and, heading south from Calvert St., NW almost to Mass. Ave. Beach is, I believe 25 mph for it's entirety.

by thump on Feb 13, 2012 1:42 pm • link • report

@Matthew/Thump

It is called Beach Dr from the MD line south to Calvert St (Woodley Park), where it becomes RCP. The speed limit on RCP is 35. I suggest you look it up.

It changes names again at VA ave, becoming Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway.

by freely on Feb 13, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report

@freely--I know where it starts and where it ends. I did a google street view from south of the Kennedy Center to the RCP/Beach Drive split. Heading south from Calvert the speed limit is 25 mph until almost the Mass Ave overpass. It becomes 25 mph again south of Virginia Ave (the only difference heading north is that it becomes 25 closer to the split Of course, if they've changed the limit since the streetview was taken, you could be right.

by thump on Feb 13, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report

*..becomes 25 closer to the RCP/Beach Dr. split)*

by thump on Feb 13, 2012 2:52 pm • link • report

Maybe I should bike up the roadway this evening and inspect the speed limits. Unlike the GW Parkway and BW Parkway, that's perfectly legal.

by Crickey7 on Feb 13, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

I greatly resented reading about the yuppie cyclists with their expensive bikes and expensive spandex suits complaining about the average person like myself getting a little enjoyment out of that park too.

See! That's the great thing about compromise! The road stayed open to cars, and they get to use it. So long as they don't mind sharing it with cyclists who are going to be riding at or below the legal posted speed limit. Everybody wins!

(Love the unhinged socioeconomic resentment and out-group hating though. "You know what I hate? Pedestrians with expensive hiking boots, and telescoping walking sticks. Those elitist scumbags!" Very attractive. Poor you.)

by oboe on Feb 13, 2012 3:09 pm • link • report

i'd like to mention that when I was 14 years old I saved my babysitting money and bought a brand new schwinn varsity 10 speed on layaway. It tok several months. Lance, an adult with a full time job, able to afford a car and its insurance payment seemingly didn't have the financial skills of a 14 year old girl to save up for a bike.

by Tina on Feb 13, 2012 3:17 pm • link • report

Lance's poo-poo argument doesn't preclude building a bicycle and pedestrian trail alongside the BW Parkway. If connected to the DC and Baltimore bikeway networks, such a trail would be a VERY good thing!

by MrTinDC on Feb 13, 2012 3:31 pm • link • report

@Mr T -indeed-every 14 year old with a bike could use the BW parkway were there a trail.

by Tina on Feb 13, 2012 3:34 pm • link • report

Driving Beach Drive and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway over to the Memorial Bridge was always a great part of my day. It was time when I couldn't even afford a bike

Wait...you could afford a car but not a bike?

by Armstrong on Feb 13, 2012 4:09 pm • link • report

I think my first RCP commuting set-up was a 10-speed steel Peugeot I paid $15 for, sneakers and jeans. At the end of 2 years, I sold it to his brother for $20.

by Crickey7 on Feb 13, 2012 4:18 pm • link • report

Hey now Lance isn't against bike on parkways, he just acknowledges that the designers of the parkways didn't envision cyclists on there in the first place and 50 or so years there are still no cyclists. QED, we shouldn't have to accomodate cyclists because they got it right the first time.

by x on Feb 13, 2012 4:41 pm • link • report

@Crickey7 (et al.), My point is that for many people, seeing the park on their way to and from work in their car is the closest they're going to get to it because not everyone has the leisure time and/or the easy commute to be able to use the park regularly. I did have an old bike at the time, but there's no way I would have attempted to ride it from Silver Spring to Arlington given the time that would have involved in addition to my usual 60 hr work weeks .... I DID later use the park on occasion on a weekend, but I fully understood that people's commuting needs must come first since not everyone has the leisure of time and money to go bike riding during the week.

by Lance on Feb 13, 2012 7:39 pm • link • report

@Lance -- just five comments ago, you said:

It was time when I couldn't even afford a bike to go biking on weekends if I'd even had the time given there was a lot of work to take home with me.

Now you say that you actually owned a bike. How are we supposed to follow the class resentment against bicyclists (since everyone knows that all cyclists have expensive bikes and even more expensive outfits), when the story keeps changing?

by Jacques on Feb 13, 2012 10:33 pm • link • report

@Lance - plenty of people commute by bike. Some choose to, some do so because it is the cheapest/best option for them. Are you suggesting that we not consider the needs of bike commuters when planning our transportation network?

More importantly, are you suggesting that we only plan our transportation network to enable (car) commuting?

Personally, I think we should plan our transportation to maximize quality of life for everyone. To me that means enabling people of all income levels to move around safely. That also means encouraging people to live in close proximity to their jobs (encouraging a range of housing levels throughout the region, discouraging long-distance commuting). By doing so, we can use our resources more efficiently, and get more out of what we have.

Imagine a DC-region where it only takes you 15 minutes each way to work (by car, bike, metro or walking - whatever your fancy), and where when you'd like to do something on the other side of the region, you can reliably get there in a reasonable amount of time. That's not going to happen with solely car centric planning

by dasgeh on Feb 14, 2012 1:44 pm • link • report